MANI DHAL Vs. PADMA CHARAN DHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Munsif, Kendrapara, disallowing the motion of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 18, Rule 2 (4), Civil P. C., seeking permission to prove certain documents after closure of the evidence of both the parties.

(2.) The petitioner filed Title Suit No. 76 of 1979 for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. He alleged that the defendants and he were the descendants of the common ancestor. Title Suit No. 109 of 1952 was filed by the father of defendants 3 and 4 against the father of defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff. The parties reached an amicable settlement and the suit was disposed of on compromise, allotting specific properties. Title to specific properties is traceable to the compromise decree. The defendants, however, in violation of the compromise decree, threatened to interfere with the enjoyment of the property allotted to and in the possession of the plaintiff. The threats were the cause of action for the suit. Defendants 1 and 6 joined contest and filed their written statement denying the compromise and the assertions made by the plaintiff-petitioner on the basis of the compromise decree.

(3.) The compromise decree, therefore, is the sole foundation of the plaintiff's case and the most crucial document in the adjudication of the controversies. Two proceedings under Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P. C., had been initiated--one at the instance of the plaintiff and the other at the instance of defendant 6. The petition for compromise was filed as early as on 26-3-1979 along with the plaint The hearing of the suit was taken up on 16-9-1980 and parties closed their evidence on 17-9-1980. The case was posted for arguments. On 12-11-1980, the plaintiff filed an application for acceptance of certain documents. The following order was passed.